In their opinion piece ‘Why boycott Israeli settlement products?' Doron Isaacs and Nathan Geffen describe those who support Israel and oppose boycotts as apologists (see here). They use this term in a demeaning, condescending manner. Its usage in this context has come to imply a total lack of respect, as though the other side is not even worth debating.
How wrong they are, because, we ‘apologists' rely on facts for our arguments. Geffen and Isaacs have chosen to begin their historical discourse in 1967 some 19 years after the establishment of the state of Israel. I choose instead to begin at the beginning.
The United Nations divided mandatory Palestine into two areas, an Arab country and a Jewish one. It is fact that 62 years ago the Palestinians could have had an independent Palestine. In the '48 war of Independence, launched by all Israel's Arab neighbours as well as Israeli Arabs, the West Bank fell to Jordan and Gaza fell to Egypt. Thus the occupation of these areas began in 1948, yet interestingly and conveniently it is a fact we never hear.
Geffen and Isaacs correctly tell us that Israel captured these areas in the '67 war, but they omit to tell us that this was a defensive war forced on Israel by its belligerent neighbours, who, 19 years after its establishment, were still determined to destroy it. They also conveniently omit to tell us that the PLO was established in 1964, three years before the so-called occupation, and it had as its raison d'etre the liberation of occupied Palestine - i.e. Israel.
Geffen and Isaacs glibly suggest two choices facing Israel. Yet they ignore the most logical scenario - for the Palestinians to recognise and accept the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state and to desist in their desire to destroy it. Such a scenario would herald the establishment of a Palestinian state and self-determination for the Palestinian people. This of course however places the blame on the Palestinians and requires of them to take responsibility, something which does not lie comfortably for Geffen and Isaacs.
A quick perusal of the internet will show Geffen and Isaacs (as they obviously don't have access to history books) that when Israel annexed East Jerusalem all Arabs living there were offered Israeli citizenship. This they refused, preferring instead permanent residency. The following comes from Wikipedia, a site so easily accessible that even the most ignorant among us can glean information:
'Jerusalem Palestinians were permitted to apply for Israeli citizenship, provided they met the requirements for naturalization-such as swearing allegiance to Israel and renouncing all other citizenships-which most of them refused to do.'
Mitzpe Shalem, the kibbutz that houses the Ahava factory is about 10 kilometres beyond the green line, in a desert area totally uninhabited by Palestinians. In fact until the establishment of the kibbutz it was completely uninhabited territory.
The OSS campaign bases its entire case for boycotting Ahava products on the argument that Israel's presence in the "Occupied Palestinian Territories" is illegal. This is a matter of much dispute. What is not of dispute though, is that the future of these territories can only be decided by the Israelis and the Palestinians together.
Indeed, it is commonly agreed by the international community (as reiterated just a few weeks ago by the Quartet - the US, EU Russia and the UN) that the status of these territories can only be resolved through direct political negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
During previous negotiations successive Israeli governments have offered to relinquish over 95 percent of the territories in exchange for the peace and security which Israelis crave, something which Geffen and Isaacs should be aware of and remember as such an offer was made as recently as 2008.
Are they aware that while they call for boycotts - with all the destruction that boycotts cause - the Israelis and Palestinians have recently once again been attempting to talk, and that at the moment Prime Minister Netanyahu is trying to get these talks back on track?
Geffen and Isaacs decry the conditions under which Palestinians live in the West Bank. Once again they conveniently disregard the events that brought about these conditions - the years of terrorism and suicide bombings aimed at Israeli citizens with the sole purpose of murdering as many civilians as possible. But then the rights of Israelis to live in security and safety are not the human rights concerns of Geffen and Isaacs. Why should they worry about Jews? They are astute enough to know that they are much more popular when they don't.
Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter
